Is belief for/against creationism important for salvation?

[theFijian]

Therein lies our problem, you want me to put my faith in my senses and I wish to put it into God and His Word. Is it any wonder we have a disconnect here.

I'm afraid you do put faith in your senses. You trust your own eyes don't you? Otherwise how would you be able to read the bible and even begin to have any idea what it says.

 

[LightHorseman]

Certainly Adam was a witness to Eve's creation. He must have been the original author from which Moses compiled the creation account so he must have received direct revelation from God about the creation. I thought we were all christians here. Do we not believe God is a valid witness?

Sure God is a valid witness... if the Bible said "handwritten by GOD" on the cover, but it doesn't. Adam is the original author from which Moses carried on? On what are you basing this major theological asertion? Surprising that there is no mention of Noah ensuring these original writings made their way aboard the Ark too.

we agree the Bible is inerrant, don't we?

No, I don't think we do. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many competing translations. Or, if you want to take the line that the Bible is inerrant, but Man's perception of it can be flawed, this has the same effect. How do you know your PERCEPTION of it is the correct one when there are other competing schools of theological thought?

Like, that's why science is inadequate, dude. It's like about philosophy, like epistemology ya know?

Science makes no claim to cover any philosophical ground, at all. Science is related strictly to what is observible by empiracle means. Thats what it does, and all it claims to do.

 

[theFijian]

Certainly Adam was a witness to Eve's creation.

Actually i think he was sleeping at the time.

He must have been the original author from which Moses compiled the creation account so he must have received direct revelation from God about the creation.

Please provide the evidence for this, biblical or otherwise.

 

[shernren]

Well true God doesn't have eyes, but He is a witness and we agree the Bible is inerrant, don't we? I can see where the atheist might need more evidence, but I was hoping we christians could agree on this without much debate.

Firstly, Biblical inerrancy is not strictly synonymous to Christianity. And I say this as someone who holds to Biblical inerrancy.

Secondly, Genesis 1 is not an "eyewitness" account. Do eyewitnesses describe their own activities in third person?

 

[Calminian]

Sure God is a valid witness... if the Bible said "handwritten by GOD" on the cover, but it doesn't. Adam is the original author from which Moses carried on? On what are you basing this major theological assertion? Surprising that there is no mention of Noah ensuring these original writings made their way aboard the Ark too.

Apparently you are not aware, but most scholars believe Moses played the role of editor when it comes to Genesis. It is likely he drew from several authors. Yes it is likely Noah was an author as well and certainly logical he was in charge of preserving previous writings. So you disagree the Bible is inerrant? That's too bad but explains a lot.

No, I don't think we do. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many competing translations. Or, if you want to take the line that the Bible is inerrant, but Man's perception of it can be flawed, this has the same effect. How do you know your PERCEPTION of it is the correct one when there are other competing schools of theological thought?

OEC theologians openly admit that my understanding is the plain straight forward reading. But they feel scientific concerns are a problem and therefore need to adjust their interpretations. I could cite several sources who admit this outright.

Another reason I'm sure, is the ECFs. They were all (with a few exceptions) young earthers, even those that allegorized the days. Even Augustine believed the earth was less than 10,000 years old despite the long age ideas of his day. They all believe the account to be historical and they were also unanimous on a global flood.

Another reason is liberal hebrew scholars. These also, almost without exception, agree with my interpretation of the author's intent. They don't agree the author's were inspired, but they agree on what they believed.

The only ones that disagree with my interpretation of Genesis are those with a dog in the race—those that really feel the need to harmonize the text with modern naturalistic theories.

Science makes no claim to cover any philosophical ground, at all. Science is related strictly to what is observable by empiracle means. Thats what it does, and all it claims to do.

I'm afraid you are terribly naive. Methodological naturalism is essential to science. We don't actually observe past events like the BB. Instead we look at current natural process and assume they have always worked the same in the past and that there have been no additions to them. This is sometimes referred to as forensic science or historical science.

Science is a wonder thing, but is limited. It can tell us how things normally work in the present, but can't tell us if there have been miracles in the past that have altered some of the effects we are observing. No can it answer questions of ontology, or how things came into being. I agree with historical scientific conclusions almost all of the time. I draw the line when they start challenging biblical miracles. I think all christians should.

 

[Assyrian]

Another reason is liberal hebrew scholars. These also, almost without exception, agree with my interpretation of the author's intent. They don't agree the author's were inspired, but they agree on what they believed.

The only ones that disagree with my interpretation of Genesis are those with a dog in the race—those that really feel the need to harmonize the text with modern naturalistic theories.

Actually the liberal Hebrew scholars would say that Genesis is an ANE creation myth along the lines of Gilgamesh, not a history.

I'm afraid you are terribly naive. Methodological naturalism is essential to science. We don't actually observe past events like the BB. Instead we look at current natural process and assume they have always worked the same in the past and that there have been no additions to them. This is sometimes referred to as forensic science or historical science.

No they don't assume that at all. They test it. They put time and effort into checking for any change in rates of radioactive decay, speed of light, universal constants, looking at events long ago in distant galaxies, or in an ancient natural nuclear reactor like Okla in Gabon.

Science is a wonder thing, but is limited. It can tell us how things normally work in the present, but can't tell us if there have been miracles in the past that have altered some of the effects we are observing. No can it answer questions of ontology, or how things came into being. I agree with historical scientific conclusions almost all of the time. I draw the line when they start challenging biblical miracles. I think all christians should.

Where does science challenge biblical miracles? It can tell us these things don't happen naturally, but the biblical writers knew that already. It is why they call them miracles.

How are scientific observations effected by miracles in the past? Surely it doesn't matter if a rock was created ex nihilo, was formed rapidly in a divine flood, or came through natural processes like being spewed out by a volcano? Once the rock is formed there is no lingering magical or miraculous power altering the physics is there? Fish didn't keep multiplying in people's stomachs. The wine in Cana didn't turn in brandy after the first sip.

So however a rock formed, once it was formed it was just a rock. Because radiometric dating doesn't tell us how a rock formed, it tells us how long it has been a rock. So for all science can tell, God may simply have created that lump of basalt, but billions of years have passed since he did.

 

[Floodnut]

Firstly, Biblical inerrancy is not strictly synonymous to Christianity. And I say this as someone who holds to Biblical inerrancy.

Secondly, Genesis 1 is not an "eyewitness" account. Do eyewitnesses describe their own activities in third person?

Eyewitnesses can speak in third person. Consider Bob Dole, who always spoke of himself as "Bob Dole" and not "I." Moses wrote Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy as an eyewitness. New Testament writers confirm that Moses wrote these books, yet he speaks of himself in third person. In the culture of the Twentieth and Twenty-first century writers may prefer first person, but that policy does not necessarily pertain in other cultures.
Personally, I am not sure that Adam or Noah wrote anything down. Adam told Methuselah, Methuselah told Shem, and Shem told Abraham, with the confirming testimony of their own sons and grandchildren, verifying that the the account was being related accurately. Then as life spans became shorter and memories more defective, the record was written down. Moses wrote it down INFALLIBLY in the book of Genesis.
But since we believe that this Scripture is God-breathed, given through holy men of old who were borne along by the Holy Spirt, then we believe that it is God's Own EYE WITNESS record of what really did happen, before man was created and in the creation of the first two humans, Adam out of Dust, and Eve out of the side of Adam.

 

[AngCath]

1. Origins theology IS NOT a matter of salvation.
2. I don't argue about it.

 

[LightHorseman]

Apparently you are not aware, but most scholars believe Moses played the role of editor when it comes to Genesis.

I am aware that people like to say Moses is the editor, as it lends an element of authorty of the writings. However I can't find any Biblical evidence that says Moses was even particularly literate, let alone a writer. But even if I agree that Moses was editor of the Genesis compilation, that isn't the same as him being an eye witness to Edenic creation.

OEC theologians openly admit that my understanding is the plain straight forward reading

I'm an OEC theologian. I don't admit that at all!

So you disagree the Bible is inerrant? That's too bad but explains a lot.

Oh yeah? like what?

Another reason I'm sure, is the ECFs. They were all (with a few exceptions) young earthers, even those that allegorized the days. Even Augustine believed the earth was less than 10,000 years old despite the long age ideas of his day. They all believe the account to be historical and they were also unanimous on a global flood.

Science is not based on plebiscite

I draw the line when they start challenging biblical miracles.

Water into wine is a biblical miracle. The resurection is a biblical miracle. (oh, and has ACTUAL eyewitness accounts)

Genesis is an ancient creation myth by semi nomadic tribesmen with no scientific understanding or methodology.

Not the same thing

 

[artybloke]

Apparently you are not aware, but most scholars believe Moses played the role of editor when it comes to Genesis.

Most which scholars? Scholars who agree with you or the vast majority of OT scholars worldwide who agree that Moses had nothing whatsoever to do with writing or editing any part of the Penteteuch, least of all Genesis?

 

[shernren]

Eyewitnesses can speak in third person. Consider Bob Dole, who always spoke of himself as "Bob Dole" and not "I." Moses wrote Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy as an eyewitness. New Testament writers confirm that Moses wrote these books, yet he speaks of himself in third person. In the culture of the Twentieth and Twenty-first century writers may prefer first person, but that policy does not necessarily pertain in other cultures.
Personally, I am not sure that Adam or Noah wrote anything down. Adam told Methuselah, Methuselah told Shem, and Shem told Abraham, with the confirming testimony of their own sons and grandchildren, verifying that the the account was being related accurately. Then as life spans became shorter and memories more defective, the record was written down. Moses wrote it down INFALLIBLY in the book of Genesis.
But since we believe that this Scripture is God-breathed, given through holy men of old who were borne along by the Holy Spirt, then we believe that it is God's Own EYE WITNESS record of what really did happen, before man was created and in the creation of the first two humans, Adam out of Dust, and Eve out of the side of Adam.

Well, that's a circular argument there.

Genesis 1 is authoritative
because it is an eyewitness account.

"Why is Genesis 1 an eyewitness account?"

Since eyewitness accounts are authoritative
and Genesis 1 is authoritative
therefore Genesis 1 is an eyewitness account.

What I was trying to point at when asking "can't eyewitnesses speak in third person?" is that eyewitness accounts are not necessarily historical accounts. An eyewitness can easily write what he saw into a poem or a song or a play, instead of a newspaper/courtroom description. I do believe that Genesis 1 is an account that describes creation, and I believe that it does reference the actual historical events of creation. It just doesn't do so in a way that invites historical interpretation of the text itself.

 

[furry001]

I am aware that people like to say Moses is the editor, as it lends an element of authorty of the writings. However I can't find any Biblical evidence that says Moses was even particularly literate, let alone a writer. But even if I agree that Moses was editor of the Genesis compilation, that isn't the same as him being an eye witness to Edenic creation.

Moses did write, and I believe that he wrote from Genesis to Deuteronomy. My biblical evidence is found in:
[bible]John 5:45-47[/bible]

These verses show us that not only was Moses literate, but that he wrote at least Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (the books that contain the law).

 

[LightHorseman]

Dear Furey1... still not the same as Moses being an eyewitness though, is it? So, how did you go with those links I sent you? Have you come up with any examples of theistic intervention suitable for inclusion in a biology text book yet? Have you thought of any more evidence you require to convince you of an ancient earth?

 

[furry001]

Dear Furey1... still not the same as Moses being an eyewitness though, is it? So, how did you go with those links I sent you? Have you come up with any examples of theistic intervention suitable for inclusion in a biology text book yet? Have you thought of any more evidence you require to convince you of an ancient earth?

I never said he was an eyewitness. I don't believe he was, nor ever could have been (that would have required time travel - the first Dr Who?). However, you said that you could not find any evidence for Moses being literate, or that he wrote anything. I presented the scriptural evidence for not only him be literate, but that he wrote at least 4 books of the OT.

I'm still looking at those links. I have a 8 month old baby to look after, so time is very limited. Will come back to you once I have investigated them.

 

[seanHayden]

I hope not!

Honestly, I don't understand how G_d created this world or any other.

When Jesus was tempted in the desert, He was offered all the world if He would worship the enemy. Jesus said, nope, only G_d is sovereign over all things.

So, I think what is important isn't what you believe or know concerning the begining of our universe, or planet or the human race, just that you know who is at the helm!